What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Origins and the Question of God #2
Jesus and the Victory of God
In this highly anticipated volume, N. T. Wright focuses directly on the historical Jesus: Who was he? What did he say? And what did he mean by it?Wright begins by showing how the questions posed by Albert Schweitzer a century ago remain central today. Then he sketches a profile of Jesus in terms of his prophetic praxis, his subversive stories, the symbols by which he reordered his world, and the answers he gave to the key questions that any world view must address. The examination of Jesus' aims and beliefs, argued on the basis of Jesus' actions and their accompanying riddles, is sure to stimulate heated response. Wright offers a provocative portrait of Jesus as Israel's Messiah who would share and bear the fate of the nation and would embody the long-promised return of Israel's God to Zion.
741 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1992
262 people are currently reading
3861 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
460 books2,866 followersN. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 151 reviews
February 13, 2014
In many ways this is the book that permanently altered the course of my theology. Even if I don't agree (and I do) and want to go back to "Vanilla Reformed," the questions have already been asked. Pandora has opened the box.
Contrary to conservative reactionaries, Wright shatters the liberal paradigm. The phrase "according to higher criticism," has been found wanting. Against fundamentalists Wright argues that we can and should ask historical questions about Jesus (this is where he brings Second Temple Judaism into the project) but against liberals he believes that Jesus can answer these questions.
He reworks his vision of Christ around issues he introduced in the earlier volume: when Jesus used certain phrases, what did he--and more importantly, his hearers--mean by these phrases? In short Wright argues that:
*Christ used parables to explode the world of his hearers--a fresh vehicle to undermine the narrative they have been hearing.
*Christ ministry figures around exile and restoration. If Israel has returned from Exile, then why haven't the great promises of Isaiah been fulfilled?
*Likewise, Kingdom of God doesn't mean a pristine synonm for the Church. When the covenant is renewed, God will be king of the world.
*If someone is the Messiah, and is to be king, they must build the temple and defeat all of God's enemies. Jesus cleansed the temple, identified the temple as his body, and took on Israel's true enemy.
*At every key point Jesus redefined the terms in Israel's worldview. If I may speak respectfully, Jesus was the first postmodernist.
*In short, Jesus lived out Israel's story. The story of coveneant was to solve the problems of creation. Abraham was called to fix Adam's problems. But Abraham (or Israel) became part of the problem itself. Therefore, Christ, an Israelite, represented Israel on the cross, died her death, and rose again to new life. And through Christ--and perhaps in some ultimate way through Israel--salvation comes to the world.
Contrary to conservative reactionaries, Wright shatters the liberal paradigm. The phrase "according to higher criticism," has been found wanting. Against fundamentalists Wright argues that we can and should ask historical questions about Jesus (this is where he brings Second Temple Judaism into the project) but against liberals he believes that Jesus can answer these questions.
He reworks his vision of Christ around issues he introduced in the earlier volume: when Jesus used certain phrases, what did he--and more importantly, his hearers--mean by these phrases? In short Wright argues that:
*Christ used parables to explode the world of his hearers--a fresh vehicle to undermine the narrative they have been hearing.
*Christ ministry figures around exile and restoration. If Israel has returned from Exile, then why haven't the great promises of Isaiah been fulfilled?
*Likewise, Kingdom of God doesn't mean a pristine synonm for the Church. When the covenant is renewed, God will be king of the world.
*If someone is the Messiah, and is to be king, they must build the temple and defeat all of God's enemies. Jesus cleansed the temple, identified the temple as his body, and took on Israel's true enemy.
*At every key point Jesus redefined the terms in Israel's worldview. If I may speak respectfully, Jesus was the first postmodernist.
*In short, Jesus lived out Israel's story. The story of coveneant was to solve the problems of creation. Abraham was called to fix Adam's problems. But Abraham (or Israel) became part of the problem itself. Therefore, Christ, an Israelite, represented Israel on the cross, died her death, and rose again to new life. And through Christ--and perhaps in some ultimate way through Israel--salvation comes to the world.
September 2, 2025
Simply one of the greatest resources out there in studying the “historical Jesus.” Wright is so thorough and his study is so robust. Unlike his contemporaries in the same quest, Wright does not become hyper-focused on a myopic vision. He stays true to a high view of Scripture being an accurate record that can provide insight and a historical context that adds color and consistency to the record.
He spends time in this book putting Jesus’s ministry in its context, but he also deals with how that ministry related to the theology and symbols of the Jewish world. What was Jesus saying and how was it understood by his contemporaries and his audience?
Finally, Wright also deals with the age-old debate of how Jesus understood himself and his vocation in the world. What was his “self-understanding” and what difference does it make? Wright’s book is incredibly thorough, thick, and provides long lists of textual and contextual evidence for this thinking. It does not cut corners, and I believe it to be one of the greatest works of scholarship on Jesus in the last century.
He spends time in this book putting Jesus’s ministry in its context, but he also deals with how that ministry related to the theology and symbols of the Jewish world. What was Jesus saying and how was it understood by his contemporaries and his audience?
Finally, Wright also deals with the age-old debate of how Jesus understood himself and his vocation in the world. What was his “self-understanding” and what difference does it make? Wright’s book is incredibly thorough, thick, and provides long lists of textual and contextual evidence for this thinking. It does not cut corners, and I believe it to be one of the greatest works of scholarship on Jesus in the last century.
June 4, 2011
I have been chipping away at this one for years, and decided that it was time to finish. The three stars are an average. Stretches of this book are extraordinarily good -- magnificent. Wright is steeped in Scripture and has many marvelous things to point out. Five stars. But then he does things that are beyond exasperating -- lower case g on God, for example. You know, two star stuff. Or the typical-sit-in-judgment-on-the-writers-of-Scripture kind of thing that contemporary scholarship mandates. A lot of worthwhile stuff here, a lot. Just don't get dazzled like so many have.
February 28, 2016
Even more exhausting than the first volume, and equally hamstrung by Wright's insistence on reading both the Israelite religion and Jesus's life in Greimasian terms, so everything has to be categorized and explained independently of everything else. The downside to this is pretty clear, and ironic: here is an analysis that's based on the stories people tell about themselves and their people... which doesn't tell much of a story itself.
That's not really much of a problem, since you won't go pick up a book like this if you don't already know the rough outlines of Jesus's life as presented in the gospels. But it does make the reading experience more painful than it needs to be; this book is basically a very long collection of analyses, whether of biblical texts, non-biblical texts, abstract questions, or other people's understanding of Jesus.
Nonetheless, Wright's understanding is very attractive. He gives you historical responsibility and respectability (Jesus was a first century Jew, who did first century Jewish things, but was also, as we barbarically say today, an innovator); he lets you keep Jesus-as-Christ (Jesus, on Wright's reading, understood himself to be the messiah, and took that to mean that he was the 'son of god,' without necessarily being entirely clear about what that might mean), and he lets you keep a great deal of orthodoxy (leading into the next volume, Wright argues that the resurrection is what explain the early church's fealty to a messiah who had so disastrously failed to bring about what he said he was bringing about--so, at a bare minimum, the preception-of-resurrection was a founding phenomenon of Christianity). In a very strange way, his reading of the gospels says: the gospels are more or less accurate, what they say can be understood perfectly well, they don't say anything ridiculous. It's just that he needs 400 pages of fine grained argument to even get you to the point that you can understand such an argument and be responsible at the same time, which is itself a pretty damning indictment not only of previous life-of-Jesus types, but also of the theologies of the various Christian denominations. All of them, it seems, have ignored history and critical analysis, to the detriment of their own scholarly work and/or faith.
The take-away is: Jesus understood himself to be replacing the Temple as site of the return of Israel's God. Instead of a Temple, you get Jesus. Instead of a victorious king, you get Jesus. Instead of political and military victory, you get a martyr. This reading makes sense of a good deal, though at least one major question goes unanswered: what on earth does it mean to say that Jesus foresaw the 'victory of God'? What does that victory look like, in practice?
Dare I read volume three? Perhaps not. But the volume on Paul, definitely.
That's not really much of a problem, since you won't go pick up a book like this if you don't already know the rough outlines of Jesus's life as presented in the gospels. But it does make the reading experience more painful than it needs to be; this book is basically a very long collection of analyses, whether of biblical texts, non-biblical texts, abstract questions, or other people's understanding of Jesus.
Nonetheless, Wright's understanding is very attractive. He gives you historical responsibility and respectability (Jesus was a first century Jew, who did first century Jewish things, but was also, as we barbarically say today, an innovator); he lets you keep Jesus-as-Christ (Jesus, on Wright's reading, understood himself to be the messiah, and took that to mean that he was the 'son of god,' without necessarily being entirely clear about what that might mean), and he lets you keep a great deal of orthodoxy (leading into the next volume, Wright argues that the resurrection is what explain the early church's fealty to a messiah who had so disastrously failed to bring about what he said he was bringing about--so, at a bare minimum, the preception-of-resurrection was a founding phenomenon of Christianity). In a very strange way, his reading of the gospels says: the gospels are more or less accurate, what they say can be understood perfectly well, they don't say anything ridiculous. It's just that he needs 400 pages of fine grained argument to even get you to the point that you can understand such an argument and be responsible at the same time, which is itself a pretty damning indictment not only of previous life-of-Jesus types, but also of the theologies of the various Christian denominations. All of them, it seems, have ignored history and critical analysis, to the detriment of their own scholarly work and/or faith.
The take-away is: Jesus understood himself to be replacing the Temple as site of the return of Israel's God. Instead of a Temple, you get Jesus. Instead of a victorious king, you get Jesus. Instead of political and military victory, you get a martyr. This reading makes sense of a good deal, though at least one major question goes unanswered: what on earth does it mean to say that Jesus foresaw the 'victory of God'? What does that victory look like, in practice?
Dare I read volume three? Perhaps not. But the volume on Paul, definitely.
June 15, 2020
As a practicing Catholic I find "Jesus and the Victory of God" to be wildly heretical. As someone who took two full-year courses at university on the history of the Roman Empire, I consider moreover to be utter balderdash.
The problem could be that I have not read any of the works of either Albert Schweitzer or William Wrede two leading Lutheran theologians of the early twentieth century. Wright's ostensible goal is to refute the arguments of these authors. John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg (along with his acolytes known as the Jesus Seminar) are also targeted by Wright.
Taken out of the context of this academic debate, Wright's thesis is quite insane. According to Wright, Christ was thoroughly Jewish in his outlook. He never intended to found a church nor did he intend to die on the cross so as to redeem fallen humanity. Jesus' goal was purely messianic; i.e. to restore the Kingdom of Israel.
In defense of his thesis, Wright offers some highly eccentric interpretations of Christ's better known parables. The prodigal son represents the exiles returning from Babylon while the jealous older son who stayed on the farm stands for those who remained in the holy land. The sterile fig tree that Jesus says must be cut down represents the traditional Judaism of the temple in Jerusalem. One's jaw drops at such interpretations.
Wright insists that he is analyzing Christ as an historian. In this regard, he is severely mistaken. Like many theologians, he believes that the moment he decides to consider Christ as a human rather than a divine being, he becomes an historian. In fact, the documentation required by a modern historian is completing lacking in the case of Christ. It is for this reason, that true historians do not write about him.
Wright's worst transgression is to state that Christ intended to provoke his crucifixion when he scourged the temple in Jerusalem. The first problem is that there is no basis on which to say that Christ planned his attack on the Temple prior to going to Jerusalem. The Evangelists say rather that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the corrupt practices that Christ found in the Temple. The second problem is that as a human Christ could not have foreseen that the reaction by the Jewish authorities to the attack would be to have him executed. They could just as well have had him imprisoned as frequently happened to the Apostles. Wright's argument is no more than a string of hypotheses and suppositions.
I do not know how well Wright scores for his sparring with Schweitzer and Wrede, but he does nothing to help the lay person better understand his or her Christian faith.
The problem could be that I have not read any of the works of either Albert Schweitzer or William Wrede two leading Lutheran theologians of the early twentieth century. Wright's ostensible goal is to refute the arguments of these authors. John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg (along with his acolytes known as the Jesus Seminar) are also targeted by Wright.
Taken out of the context of this academic debate, Wright's thesis is quite insane. According to Wright, Christ was thoroughly Jewish in his outlook. He never intended to found a church nor did he intend to die on the cross so as to redeem fallen humanity. Jesus' goal was purely messianic; i.e. to restore the Kingdom of Israel.
In defense of his thesis, Wright offers some highly eccentric interpretations of Christ's better known parables. The prodigal son represents the exiles returning from Babylon while the jealous older son who stayed on the farm stands for those who remained in the holy land. The sterile fig tree that Jesus says must be cut down represents the traditional Judaism of the temple in Jerusalem. One's jaw drops at such interpretations.
Wright insists that he is analyzing Christ as an historian. In this regard, he is severely mistaken. Like many theologians, he believes that the moment he decides to consider Christ as a human rather than a divine being, he becomes an historian. In fact, the documentation required by a modern historian is completing lacking in the case of Christ. It is for this reason, that true historians do not write about him.
Wright's worst transgression is to state that Christ intended to provoke his crucifixion when he scourged the temple in Jerusalem. The first problem is that there is no basis on which to say that Christ planned his attack on the Temple prior to going to Jerusalem. The Evangelists say rather that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the corrupt practices that Christ found in the Temple. The second problem is that as a human Christ could not have foreseen that the reaction by the Jewish authorities to the attack would be to have him executed. They could just as well have had him imprisoned as frequently happened to the Apostles. Wright's argument is no more than a string of hypotheses and suppositions.
I do not know how well Wright scores for his sparring with Schweitzer and Wrede, but he does nothing to help the lay person better understand his or her Christian faith.
March 18, 2023
2023 reads: 07
Rating: 5 stars
"Rigorous history (i.e. open-ended investigation of actual events in first-century Palestine) and rigorous theology (i.e. open-ended investigation of what the word ‘god’, and hence the adjective ‘divine’, might actually refer to) belong together, and never more so than in discussion of Jesus." (8) Wright aims toward a new integration of both. (122)
Wright's method is as follows: “Jesus’ public persona withing first-century Judaism was that of a prophet, and that the content of his prophetic proclamation was that ‘kingdom’ of Israel’s god.” These ideas are mined from an investigation of praxis, story, symbol, and question. The results bring us, as close as possible, to Jesus’ ‘mindset’, his “own particular variation on the overarching first-century Jewish worldview.” (11)
Though post-Enlightenment thought posed a challenge to Christianity, Wright welcomes its critical aparatus as a means of bringing history back into conversation with ‘faith’. Despite the criticisms of many an historical-critic, Christianity is shown not as resting on historical distortion or fantasy (16). Instead, Wright manuevers between Wrede’s gospels-as-mirrors-of-the-early-church, Bultmann’s demythologized-kerygma, and Schweitzer’s Jesus-as-failed-apocalyptic-herald, and proposes an historical construction of Jesus resting in rigorous history and rigorous theology.
The inquiry is both propelled and escourted by two ideas: Jesus’ "relation to Judaism on the one hand and to the early church on the other." (113) Beginning from a Jewish eschatological context of fervent expectation of YHWH’s action vis-à-vis the world, Jesus’ praxis and teachings are considered through the worldview of first-century Judaism. In dialogue with his contemporaries, Wright notes the similar yet different contours to Jesus’ message and praxis, always with an eye to how the early church appropriated them:
“Israel has been waiting for redemption, for the return from exile. The early Christians are behaving as though it has already happened, and are justifying this by telling stories about Jesus himself…Jesus believed that he was the agent of this strange return from exile.” (128)
In sum, Wright’s hypothesis is as follows: “the son, Israel-in-person…will himself go into the far country…will take upon himself the shame of Israel’s exile, so that the kingdom may come, the covenant be renewed, and the prodigal welcome of Israel’s god, the creator, be extended to the ends of the earth.” (133)
Jesus is the eschatological prophet of God, the Danielic son of man, the suffering servant of Isaiah’s new exodus, the arm of God who has visited his people in judgment and salvation in order to bring an end to evil, exile, and the enemies of God’s people. God has become King in and through Jesus’ praxis and message, and in so doing has called about the reconfiguration of his people, not around Torah and Temple, but around allegiance to his teaching and praxis. The covenant is renewed. Sin has been dealt with. And God’s kingdom is here.
JVG is a phenomenal achievement in breadth and depth. Volume 1 is necessary reading for the full significance of this volume to be felt. I will never read my Bible the same. JVG will no doubt stir up and conjure many questions, thoughts and ideas upon its readers.
Rating: 5 stars
"Rigorous history (i.e. open-ended investigation of actual events in first-century Palestine) and rigorous theology (i.e. open-ended investigation of what the word ‘god’, and hence the adjective ‘divine’, might actually refer to) belong together, and never more so than in discussion of Jesus." (8) Wright aims toward a new integration of both. (122)
Wright's method is as follows: “Jesus’ public persona withing first-century Judaism was that of a prophet, and that the content of his prophetic proclamation was that ‘kingdom’ of Israel’s god.” These ideas are mined from an investigation of praxis, story, symbol, and question. The results bring us, as close as possible, to Jesus’ ‘mindset’, his “own particular variation on the overarching first-century Jewish worldview.” (11)
Though post-Enlightenment thought posed a challenge to Christianity, Wright welcomes its critical aparatus as a means of bringing history back into conversation with ‘faith’. Despite the criticisms of many an historical-critic, Christianity is shown not as resting on historical distortion or fantasy (16). Instead, Wright manuevers between Wrede’s gospels-as-mirrors-of-the-early-church, Bultmann’s demythologized-kerygma, and Schweitzer’s Jesus-as-failed-apocalyptic-herald, and proposes an historical construction of Jesus resting in rigorous history and rigorous theology.
The inquiry is both propelled and escourted by two ideas: Jesus’ "relation to Judaism on the one hand and to the early church on the other." (113) Beginning from a Jewish eschatological context of fervent expectation of YHWH’s action vis-à-vis the world, Jesus’ praxis and teachings are considered through the worldview of first-century Judaism. In dialogue with his contemporaries, Wright notes the similar yet different contours to Jesus’ message and praxis, always with an eye to how the early church appropriated them:
“Israel has been waiting for redemption, for the return from exile. The early Christians are behaving as though it has already happened, and are justifying this by telling stories about Jesus himself…Jesus believed that he was the agent of this strange return from exile.” (128)
In sum, Wright’s hypothesis is as follows: “the son, Israel-in-person…will himself go into the far country…will take upon himself the shame of Israel’s exile, so that the kingdom may come, the covenant be renewed, and the prodigal welcome of Israel’s god, the creator, be extended to the ends of the earth.” (133)
Jesus is the eschatological prophet of God, the Danielic son of man, the suffering servant of Isaiah’s new exodus, the arm of God who has visited his people in judgment and salvation in order to bring an end to evil, exile, and the enemies of God’s people. God has become King in and through Jesus’ praxis and message, and in so doing has called about the reconfiguration of his people, not around Torah and Temple, but around allegiance to his teaching and praxis. The covenant is renewed. Sin has been dealt with. And God’s kingdom is here.
JVG is a phenomenal achievement in breadth and depth. Volume 1 is necessary reading for the full significance of this volume to be felt. I will never read my Bible the same. JVG will no doubt stir up and conjure many questions, thoughts and ideas upon its readers.
July 4, 2023
This book is a laborious - and often frankly quite tedious - read, which spends almost as much time analyzing and critiquing other veins of historical Jesus scholarship as it does on the Nazarene himself; but it's also an impressive effort to reconstruct the world of early first century Palestine and to demonstrate both the continuities and the innovations of Jesus's ministry in light of Jewish history and tradition. Wright rejects any attempt to frame Jesus either as a wisdom teacher who promulgated timeless moral truths and may thus be safely extracted from his historical context, or merely as a "failed" apocalyptic prophet who mistakenly believed that God was about to reconstitute the true Israel, cast down its enemies, and enthrone Himself over His people, getting himself crucified for his trouble.
For Wright, Jesus was a prophet in the vein of Elijah and John the Baptist, preaching the imminent (and immanent) inauguration of the Kingdom of God; but he also claimed to constitute this inauguration, offering redemption from spiritual captivity and a new formulation of God's people - a new way of being Israel - legitimated by his own authority and outside the purview of the Temple hierarchy. He interrupted the corrupt collaborationism of Herod Antipas and the violent revanchism of the Zealots with his own story of a peaceable kingdom established through God's affiliation with the poor and marginalized. He both preached and lived out a narrative truth that was vindicated in the eyes of his followers by their belief, after his crucifixion, that God had raised him from the dead, thus delivering the true Israel from its true enemy.
At bottom, the book is a sophisticated attempt to identify the contours of Christian orthodoxy within a secular historical framework.
For Wright, Jesus was a prophet in the vein of Elijah and John the Baptist, preaching the imminent (and immanent) inauguration of the Kingdom of God; but he also claimed to constitute this inauguration, offering redemption from spiritual captivity and a new formulation of God's people - a new way of being Israel - legitimated by his own authority and outside the purview of the Temple hierarchy. He interrupted the corrupt collaborationism of Herod Antipas and the violent revanchism of the Zealots with his own story of a peaceable kingdom established through God's affiliation with the poor and marginalized. He both preached and lived out a narrative truth that was vindicated in the eyes of his followers by their belief, after his crucifixion, that God had raised him from the dead, thus delivering the true Israel from its true enemy.
At bottom, the book is a sophisticated attempt to identify the contours of Christian orthodoxy within a secular historical framework.
December 2, 2012
REVIEW AND CRITIQUE Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
This work is the second volume of a N. T. Wright’s six-volume series entitled “Christian Origins and the Question of God.”
Wright firstly critiques the misguided “first quest” of historical Jesus that gives no real Jesus but a reimagined Jesus conformed to modern expectations. Secondly Wright critiques the reductionistic “new quest” of historical Jesus that only begins to acknowledge the significance of eschatology in Jesus’ faith but fail to see his historical Jewish context. The more “authentic” historical Jesus, according to Wright, is in line with the “third questers” who takes seriously the Jewishness of historical Jesus.
Wright does not share the radical skepticism of modern critics that deny the significance of historical Jesus, nor is he daunted by the accumulation of varying material about Jesus that becomes available in our day’s knowledge base. He believes that real knowledge of the historical Jesus is possible with his optimistic version of critical realism. His motive is both apologetic and historian: if we can know much about this Jesus in the history, then we can revitalize our faith in the twenty-first century.
As a historian, Wright insists that every word and every act of Jesus must be encoded or decoded against the unique historical and cultural context of the first-century Judaism in the Greco-Roman world. It was this very Judaism that Jesus was interacting, challenging, and confronting. Wright is sensitive to differentiate “how does Jesus fit into the Judaism of his day?” from “how does Jesus uniquely different and radically challenging to the Judaism of his day?”
As Wright has demonstrated in the first volume of the series, he believes that the “first-century Judaism can be understood only within a climate of intense eschatological expectation” (96). The central feature of this eschatological expectation, according to Wright’s historical reconstruction, is the long-awaiting covenantal fulfillment of restoring the Israel from the exile. If we consistently interpret and reinterpret Jesus through the lens of “Israel’s restoration from the exile,” we will find a new portrait of Jesus somewhat different from the traditional portrait of Jesus for centuries in the Western world. The “authentic” portrait of Jesus must embrace this Jewish hope, making it thematic for his own Messianic vocation.
Here are the syntheses of Wright's portrait of the more “authentic” historical Jesus:
1. Jesus’ beliefs are summarized in terms of the three most fundamental Jewish beliefs: monotheism, election, and eschatology.
2. Jesus believed that the coming kingdom of Israel’s god would bring about the real return from exile, the final defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion.
3. Jesus told stories, as the most effective way to subvert and challenge the various versions of the first-century Jewish hope for the eschatological kingdom.
4. Jesus saw himself more than a prophet, no less than the public persona of a prophet, but he envisaged his work as bringing Israel’s history to it fateful climax--he was inaugurating the kingdom of Israel’s god.
5. Jesus’ idea of Messiah is thoroughgoing Jewish in character, who will be commissioned by YHWH to end the injustice of the world.
6. The difference between the beliefs of Jesus and those of thousands of other Jews of his day amounted simply to this: he believed, also, that all these things were coming true in and through himself.
7. Jesus’ idiosyncratic vision of the eschatological kingdom was challenging, contradictory, and offensive to the Jews.
8. Jesus showed how to live a new life as the new way of being the new Israel.
9. Jesus refined and reinterpreted the symbols of Judaism pointing toward himself.
10. Jesus’ own symbols concerning the kingdom: a restored land, a restored people, a redefined family, a redefined Torah, a rebuilt temple, centered on the theme of returning from exile.
11. Jesus understood his particular task was to offer a symbolic encoding/decoding of this entire theology and expectation in terms of his own life and work.
12. Jesus as a dangerous political liability who defied, minimized, and spoke against such Jewish identifying symbols as the law, food, Sabbath, and temple, and thus aroused anger and agitation against him.
13. Jesus saw himself as Yahweh’s special agent and that his going to Jerusalem was in reality as the symbol and embodiment of YHWH’s return to Zion.
14. Jesus’ message called his followers into repentance. However, the repentance was referring less to individual than to national repentance. The nation was to repent of its revolutionary desire for war and the overthrow of Rome.
15. Jesus did not know that he was God in the same way as we do; he was fully aware of his “Messianic vocation” as the symbolic return of YHWH to Zion.
16. Jesus died to subvert the mainstream symbols of the Judaism of the day and demonstrated the end of Israel's exile and Yahweh's covenantal promise of forgiveness and redemption as the climax of the covenant.
17. Jesus meant to die for his vocation in order to fulfill the role of righteous prophet whose suffering through death would take upon himself the judgment due to the Israel nation.
18. Today’s Christians should reconsider their own portrait of Jesus in the first-century Jewish context and ponder how we can learn from what Jesus did and imitate Jesus’ way in running our lives.
Critiques:
Wright’s thesis is very fresh and challenging in terms of correlating Jesus with his historical Jewish context. He is also very ingenious in coordinating many important biblical-theological themes in the Second Temple literatures and in the NT to create a more synthetic picture. However I am not convinced by his critical-realist methodology, exegetical tendency, and his thesis with regard to the historical Jesus.
Here are my critiques:
1. Normative Judaism:
As a critical-realist, Wright appears too confident in his reconstruction of the first-century Judaism as primarily the hoping-for-restoration-from-exile community. Readers of Wright must realize that his reconstruction of the early Judaism is still inconclusive in shape. The Second Temple Judaism to our knowledge today does not have a “normative Judaism” but show many forms and shapes. Wright generalizes the eschatological orientation of apocalyptic Judaism as “the Judaism” among the many “Judaisms,” and then reduces it to the hoping-for-restoration-from-exile Judaism.
Wright has been too earnest in promoting his model to the degree of using it as the only theme of the first-century Judaism in practice. It is methodologically faulty to assume that every aspect of the Jewish environment in which Jesus was interacting and challenging is about the vision of returning-from-the-exile.
2. Forcing the text to meet one-sided context:
While Wright attacks the first-questers such as the Jesus Seminar for judging the evidences about Jesus based on the picture “which has already been chosen” (33), he is doing no better than looking at Jesus in a different direction with the picture of a “Jewish Jesus” which has been already chosen by him.
After stripping the traditional portrait of Jesus from the influence of Western introspective conscience, Wright “remythologizes” Jesus with the alleged Jewish background, overlooking the other characteristics of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels that appear more universal than Jewish.
3. Extrabiblical materials over biblical materials:
Wright’s exegeses have the tendency of ignoring the direct discourse context but introducing his chosen biblical-theological themes and the alleged Jewish background into the text. He seems to give more credit to the reliability of extrabiblical materials than to the biblical materials.
4. Historicist impulse:
Wright in his interpretation of Jesus discusses the evangelists’ theological shaping of the accounts for Jesus in profound detail. If there is such an “authentic” historical Jesus who lived much closer to the evangelists than to us, it is significant to ask why we would want a fairly different portrait of Jesus from those of the evangelists, if it is not demanded by our own contemporary worldview. The evangelists did not seem to bother portraying the kind of divine and universal Messiah as we have traditionally known, not thinking themselves as distorting the “authentic” Jesus, if there had been such kind of Jesus ever existing.
The traditional assumption that the evangelists preserved different parts of Jesus’ proclamations remains a likely hypothesis that deserves contemporary scholars’ attention. Wright’s historicist impulse seems to preclude the witness of the Scripture in interpreting the historical Jesus event.
5. Marginalizing miracles:
Wright’s worldview-laden hermeneutic eschews apologetically the historical significance of miracle materials about Jesus. The physical manifestation of miracles in the Gospels is by and large marginalized in Wright’s model of interpretative framework. Traditionally Jesus’ miracles are significant because they demonstrate Jesus’ authority in employing the symbolic values of the miracles to show his connection with the OT.
But in Wright’s model he uses only the symbolic values without paying attention to their links to Jesus’ miracles. As a result, Jesus’ Messianic vocation in Wright’s model is primarily to provide a set of refined symbols and reinterpreted meaning in order to fulfill the intensive expectation of the first-century Jews. Jesus did not come to change the world, but to change the views of the world. Without adequate place for the miracles, Wright radically de-contextualizes the historical significance of Jesus’ miracles from the historical events of Jesus’ miraculous acts.
6. Jesus’ fulfilling human expectation over fulfilling the Scripture:
Wright’s model does not differentiate the OT tradition from the Second Temple Judaism in a clear fashion. He seems to think of Judaism and OT as indistinguishable or inseparable duplex. Although Judaism is deeply dependent on the OT tradition, Jesus tends to appeal the OT itself to make his case when attacking the Judaism of his time as “human tradition” (Mat 15:3; Mk 7:7).
Jesus claimed that his mission was to fulfill the “Scripture,” not the intensive expectations of the first-century Jews (Mk 14:19). On the contrast, he constantly avoided to meet their expectations (Jn 6:15). Wright’s interpretation of Jesus’ proclamation of national repentance is controlled by his own presupposition of the Israel’s hope of national restoration, but he neglects the speaking of individual repentance (Pss 25:18; 32:1,5; 38:18; 51:2-3; 103:3,10; 130:4) and of individual forgiveness (Lev 4:26,31,35; 19:22) in the OT.
This work is the second volume of a N. T. Wright’s six-volume series entitled “Christian Origins and the Question of God.”
Wright firstly critiques the misguided “first quest” of historical Jesus that gives no real Jesus but a reimagined Jesus conformed to modern expectations. Secondly Wright critiques the reductionistic “new quest” of historical Jesus that only begins to acknowledge the significance of eschatology in Jesus’ faith but fail to see his historical Jewish context. The more “authentic” historical Jesus, according to Wright, is in line with the “third questers” who takes seriously the Jewishness of historical Jesus.
Wright does not share the radical skepticism of modern critics that deny the significance of historical Jesus, nor is he daunted by the accumulation of varying material about Jesus that becomes available in our day’s knowledge base. He believes that real knowledge of the historical Jesus is possible with his optimistic version of critical realism. His motive is both apologetic and historian: if we can know much about this Jesus in the history, then we can revitalize our faith in the twenty-first century.
As a historian, Wright insists that every word and every act of Jesus must be encoded or decoded against the unique historical and cultural context of the first-century Judaism in the Greco-Roman world. It was this very Judaism that Jesus was interacting, challenging, and confronting. Wright is sensitive to differentiate “how does Jesus fit into the Judaism of his day?” from “how does Jesus uniquely different and radically challenging to the Judaism of his day?”
As Wright has demonstrated in the first volume of the series, he believes that the “first-century Judaism can be understood only within a climate of intense eschatological expectation” (96). The central feature of this eschatological expectation, according to Wright’s historical reconstruction, is the long-awaiting covenantal fulfillment of restoring the Israel from the exile. If we consistently interpret and reinterpret Jesus through the lens of “Israel’s restoration from the exile,” we will find a new portrait of Jesus somewhat different from the traditional portrait of Jesus for centuries in the Western world. The “authentic” portrait of Jesus must embrace this Jewish hope, making it thematic for his own Messianic vocation.
Here are the syntheses of Wright's portrait of the more “authentic” historical Jesus:
1. Jesus’ beliefs are summarized in terms of the three most fundamental Jewish beliefs: monotheism, election, and eschatology.
2. Jesus believed that the coming kingdom of Israel’s god would bring about the real return from exile, the final defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion.
3. Jesus told stories, as the most effective way to subvert and challenge the various versions of the first-century Jewish hope for the eschatological kingdom.
4. Jesus saw himself more than a prophet, no less than the public persona of a prophet, but he envisaged his work as bringing Israel’s history to it fateful climax--he was inaugurating the kingdom of Israel’s god.
5. Jesus’ idea of Messiah is thoroughgoing Jewish in character, who will be commissioned by YHWH to end the injustice of the world.
6. The difference between the beliefs of Jesus and those of thousands of other Jews of his day amounted simply to this: he believed, also, that all these things were coming true in and through himself.
7. Jesus’ idiosyncratic vision of the eschatological kingdom was challenging, contradictory, and offensive to the Jews.
8. Jesus showed how to live a new life as the new way of being the new Israel.
9. Jesus refined and reinterpreted the symbols of Judaism pointing toward himself.
10. Jesus’ own symbols concerning the kingdom: a restored land, a restored people, a redefined family, a redefined Torah, a rebuilt temple, centered on the theme of returning from exile.
11. Jesus understood his particular task was to offer a symbolic encoding/decoding of this entire theology and expectation in terms of his own life and work.
12. Jesus as a dangerous political liability who defied, minimized, and spoke against such Jewish identifying symbols as the law, food, Sabbath, and temple, and thus aroused anger and agitation against him.
13. Jesus saw himself as Yahweh’s special agent and that his going to Jerusalem was in reality as the symbol and embodiment of YHWH’s return to Zion.
14. Jesus’ message called his followers into repentance. However, the repentance was referring less to individual than to national repentance. The nation was to repent of its revolutionary desire for war and the overthrow of Rome.
15. Jesus did not know that he was God in the same way as we do; he was fully aware of his “Messianic vocation” as the symbolic return of YHWH to Zion.
16. Jesus died to subvert the mainstream symbols of the Judaism of the day and demonstrated the end of Israel's exile and Yahweh's covenantal promise of forgiveness and redemption as the climax of the covenant.
17. Jesus meant to die for his vocation in order to fulfill the role of righteous prophet whose suffering through death would take upon himself the judgment due to the Israel nation.
18. Today’s Christians should reconsider their own portrait of Jesus in the first-century Jewish context and ponder how we can learn from what Jesus did and imitate Jesus’ way in running our lives.
Critiques:
Wright’s thesis is very fresh and challenging in terms of correlating Jesus with his historical Jewish context. He is also very ingenious in coordinating many important biblical-theological themes in the Second Temple literatures and in the NT to create a more synthetic picture. However I am not convinced by his critical-realist methodology, exegetical tendency, and his thesis with regard to the historical Jesus.
Here are my critiques:
1. Normative Judaism:
As a critical-realist, Wright appears too confident in his reconstruction of the first-century Judaism as primarily the hoping-for-restoration-from-exile community. Readers of Wright must realize that his reconstruction of the early Judaism is still inconclusive in shape. The Second Temple Judaism to our knowledge today does not have a “normative Judaism” but show many forms and shapes. Wright generalizes the eschatological orientation of apocalyptic Judaism as “the Judaism” among the many “Judaisms,” and then reduces it to the hoping-for-restoration-from-exile Judaism.
Wright has been too earnest in promoting his model to the degree of using it as the only theme of the first-century Judaism in practice. It is methodologically faulty to assume that every aspect of the Jewish environment in which Jesus was interacting and challenging is about the vision of returning-from-the-exile.
2. Forcing the text to meet one-sided context:
While Wright attacks the first-questers such as the Jesus Seminar for judging the evidences about Jesus based on the picture “which has already been chosen” (33), he is doing no better than looking at Jesus in a different direction with the picture of a “Jewish Jesus” which has been already chosen by him.
After stripping the traditional portrait of Jesus from the influence of Western introspective conscience, Wright “remythologizes” Jesus with the alleged Jewish background, overlooking the other characteristics of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels that appear more universal than Jewish.
3. Extrabiblical materials over biblical materials:
Wright’s exegeses have the tendency of ignoring the direct discourse context but introducing his chosen biblical-theological themes and the alleged Jewish background into the text. He seems to give more credit to the reliability of extrabiblical materials than to the biblical materials.
4. Historicist impulse:
Wright in his interpretation of Jesus discusses the evangelists’ theological shaping of the accounts for Jesus in profound detail. If there is such an “authentic” historical Jesus who lived much closer to the evangelists than to us, it is significant to ask why we would want a fairly different portrait of Jesus from those of the evangelists, if it is not demanded by our own contemporary worldview. The evangelists did not seem to bother portraying the kind of divine and universal Messiah as we have traditionally known, not thinking themselves as distorting the “authentic” Jesus, if there had been such kind of Jesus ever existing.
The traditional assumption that the evangelists preserved different parts of Jesus’ proclamations remains a likely hypothesis that deserves contemporary scholars’ attention. Wright’s historicist impulse seems to preclude the witness of the Scripture in interpreting the historical Jesus event.
5. Marginalizing miracles:
Wright’s worldview-laden hermeneutic eschews apologetically the historical significance of miracle materials about Jesus. The physical manifestation of miracles in the Gospels is by and large marginalized in Wright’s model of interpretative framework. Traditionally Jesus’ miracles are significant because they demonstrate Jesus’ authority in employing the symbolic values of the miracles to show his connection with the OT.
But in Wright’s model he uses only the symbolic values without paying attention to their links to Jesus’ miracles. As a result, Jesus’ Messianic vocation in Wright’s model is primarily to provide a set of refined symbols and reinterpreted meaning in order to fulfill the intensive expectation of the first-century Jews. Jesus did not come to change the world, but to change the views of the world. Without adequate place for the miracles, Wright radically de-contextualizes the historical significance of Jesus’ miracles from the historical events of Jesus’ miraculous acts.
6. Jesus’ fulfilling human expectation over fulfilling the Scripture:
Wright’s model does not differentiate the OT tradition from the Second Temple Judaism in a clear fashion. He seems to think of Judaism and OT as indistinguishable or inseparable duplex. Although Judaism is deeply dependent on the OT tradition, Jesus tends to appeal the OT itself to make his case when attacking the Judaism of his time as “human tradition” (Mat 15:3; Mk 7:7).
Jesus claimed that his mission was to fulfill the “Scripture,” not the intensive expectations of the first-century Jews (Mk 14:19). On the contrast, he constantly avoided to meet their expectations (Jn 6:15). Wright’s interpretation of Jesus’ proclamation of national repentance is controlled by his own presupposition of the Israel’s hope of national restoration, but he neglects the speaking of individual repentance (Pss 25:18; 32:1,5; 38:18; 51:2-3; 103:3,10; 130:4) and of individual forgiveness (Lev 4:26,31,35; 19:22) in the OT.
October 12, 2023
I want to say first of all, that I love N.T. Wright. I am a big fan of his books, lectures, sermons and articles. He's one of the top five New Testament Historians on nearly anybody's list, and he is a much needed voice speaking on behalf of the church today.
Jesus and the Victory of God is book two in Wright's magnum opus in the making, a series spanning six books (three not yet written) entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God. Wright is a historian by trade and these books are written as such.
New Testament history is a tricky beast. The last hundred years of of NT history hasn't been very kind to the church. In many ways, the task of the historian is the opposite of the task of the exegete. The exegete examines the text to find out what the author intended to say in its original meaning and context. The historian examines the text to find out the story behind what the author is intending to say - to find out what actually happened, instead of what the author is saying happened. For a long time, the contention of many historians has been that what actually happened is not at all what the author is claiming. For the historian, texts are routinely taken out of context, examined individually, and then reassembled into a picture the historian thinks is even better than what the evangelists wrote.
In the last few decades however, NT history has been taking a different turn, and people like Wright are heading the charge. Anyone interested in what historians are saying cannot ignore this series (including, of course, this book). It and its predecessor really are a monument in historical Jesus studies. The theology isn't exactly 'kosher' but the historians task isn't to interpret scripture so that it conforms to Nicene Christology, the historian really doesn't care about that kind of thing. As far as NT histories go though, this series is one of the closest you're going to get.
The first section of the book is itself a wonderful overview of recent historical Jesus studies. Wright assesses historians individually and as groups and makes his insightful comments on the field as it stands today. He basically divides the field into two groups, those following the tradition of Wrede, claiming that we can know only a precious little (if anything) about the actual Jesus. In these circles, Jesus comes out looking mostly non-Jewish and definitely non-apocalyptic. Wright argues against this viewpoint as being bad history. The so-called 'third quest', in which Wright is a major player, follows the tradition of Schweitzer and places Jesus firmly in his Jewish roots.
Where Wright differs from Schweitzer is something he discussed in his first book, The New Testament and the People of God. Schweitzer argued that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, proclaiming the imminent end of the world to his fellow Jews. That was two thousand years ago, and the world is still here. Jesus was a great guy and all, but he was wrong. Whatever he thought was going to happen, didn't. Schweitzer, Wright says, made a serious error: He was misreading apocalyptic language. Jesus was not (and no first century Jew was) expecting the end of the space-time universe. This is not the kind of thing that apocalyptic language does. Rather, it looks at real-world events and imbues them with their 'other-worldly' significance. Wright says that Jesus was not predicting the end of the world, but rather the final phase in God's plan for Israel. This is important to remember because it makes up part of the central thesis of Wright's entire work.
The other part of his thesis is this: Wright claims that most first century Jews thought of themselves as still being in exile. These two points are key to understanding Jesus and what he was doing. Which, Wright further claims, was this: Jesus came to announce to the Jews the end of the exile (not the end of the world). This is a tough sell though. Did the first century Jews really think of themselves as still being in exile? Even with the rebuilt temple standing in their midst? Certainly the Sadducees didn't. Wright spends much of his time belaboring this point, and overall, he explains his case well (he has convinced me at least). Would any serious-thinking first-century Jew claim the prophecies of Isaiah 40-66, or of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Zechariah, had been fulfilled? That the temple Herod was fixing up was really the final one? That YHWH had returned to Zion? In other words, Wright says, that the exile was really over?
Wright then turns to look at Jesus as prophet. Here he uses the technique he outlined in the first book of determining and examining a culture's specific worldview. By studying the symbols, praxis and stories of Jesus and comparing them with those of first century Judaism, he comes up with a compelling portrait. Comparing this portrait with the Jews thinking of themselves as being in exile, Jesus comes on the scene proclaiming that the exile is now over, and it is over because of Jesus himself. What YHWH has said that he will do, Jesus is now doing.
And like all good Jewish prophets, Jesus comes warning his contemporaries to repent and follow him. Specifically, he calls on his fellow Jews to abandon their nationalistic zeal, for that way leads only to disaster (which later Jewish revolts proved to be true). To Jesus, the fight was seen not as being against the Romans, but as being against the power behind the Romans. The real enemy of the People of God, Satan. This is how Jesus plans on ending the exile as well - by taking on and defeating Satan himself. Jesus is tempted to fight Satan on his own terms, but overcomes this during the temptation in the desert. Later, the Satan has even infiltrated his disciples - Peter himself tempts Jesus to take up arms and fight. It is clear that Jesus must go it alone. Jesus does overcome these trials however, and defeats Satan not on Satan's terms (as perhaps some of his contemporaries were trying to do) but on YHWH's terms.
This defeat of Satan was accomplished through his final journey to Jerusalem, his trial, and his inglorious death on the cross. Jesus knew that this was coming. His death was not an unforeseen tragedy, but the expected culmination of his life's work. This is the end of sins. This is the return from exile. This is the Victory of God.
Jesus and the Victory of God is book two in Wright's magnum opus in the making, a series spanning six books (three not yet written) entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God. Wright is a historian by trade and these books are written as such.
New Testament history is a tricky beast. The last hundred years of of NT history hasn't been very kind to the church. In many ways, the task of the historian is the opposite of the task of the exegete. The exegete examines the text to find out what the author intended to say in its original meaning and context. The historian examines the text to find out the story behind what the author is intending to say - to find out what actually happened, instead of what the author is saying happened. For a long time, the contention of many historians has been that what actually happened is not at all what the author is claiming. For the historian, texts are routinely taken out of context, examined individually, and then reassembled into a picture the historian thinks is even better than what the evangelists wrote.
In the last few decades however, NT history has been taking a different turn, and people like Wright are heading the charge. Anyone interested in what historians are saying cannot ignore this series (including, of course, this book). It and its predecessor really are a monument in historical Jesus studies. The theology isn't exactly 'kosher' but the historians task isn't to interpret scripture so that it conforms to Nicene Christology, the historian really doesn't care about that kind of thing. As far as NT histories go though, this series is one of the closest you're going to get.
The first section of the book is itself a wonderful overview of recent historical Jesus studies. Wright assesses historians individually and as groups and makes his insightful comments on the field as it stands today. He basically divides the field into two groups, those following the tradition of Wrede, claiming that we can know only a precious little (if anything) about the actual Jesus. In these circles, Jesus comes out looking mostly non-Jewish and definitely non-apocalyptic. Wright argues against this viewpoint as being bad history. The so-called 'third quest', in which Wright is a major player, follows the tradition of Schweitzer and places Jesus firmly in his Jewish roots.
Where Wright differs from Schweitzer is something he discussed in his first book, The New Testament and the People of God. Schweitzer argued that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, proclaiming the imminent end of the world to his fellow Jews. That was two thousand years ago, and the world is still here. Jesus was a great guy and all, but he was wrong. Whatever he thought was going to happen, didn't. Schweitzer, Wright says, made a serious error: He was misreading apocalyptic language. Jesus was not (and no first century Jew was) expecting the end of the space-time universe. This is not the kind of thing that apocalyptic language does. Rather, it looks at real-world events and imbues them with their 'other-worldly' significance. Wright says that Jesus was not predicting the end of the world, but rather the final phase in God's plan for Israel. This is important to remember because it makes up part of the central thesis of Wright's entire work.
The other part of his thesis is this: Wright claims that most first century Jews thought of themselves as still being in exile. These two points are key to understanding Jesus and what he was doing. Which, Wright further claims, was this: Jesus came to announce to the Jews the end of the exile (not the end of the world). This is a tough sell though. Did the first century Jews really think of themselves as still being in exile? Even with the rebuilt temple standing in their midst? Certainly the Sadducees didn't. Wright spends much of his time belaboring this point, and overall, he explains his case well (he has convinced me at least). Would any serious-thinking first-century Jew claim the prophecies of Isaiah 40-66, or of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Zechariah, had been fulfilled? That the temple Herod was fixing up was really the final one? That YHWH had returned to Zion? In other words, Wright says, that the exile was really over?
Wright then turns to look at Jesus as prophet. Here he uses the technique he outlined in the first book of determining and examining a culture's specific worldview. By studying the symbols, praxis and stories of Jesus and comparing them with those of first century Judaism, he comes up with a compelling portrait. Comparing this portrait with the Jews thinking of themselves as being in exile, Jesus comes on the scene proclaiming that the exile is now over, and it is over because of Jesus himself. What YHWH has said that he will do, Jesus is now doing.
And like all good Jewish prophets, Jesus comes warning his contemporaries to repent and follow him. Specifically, he calls on his fellow Jews to abandon their nationalistic zeal, for that way leads only to disaster (which later Jewish revolts proved to be true). To Jesus, the fight was seen not as being against the Romans, but as being against the power behind the Romans. The real enemy of the People of God, Satan. This is how Jesus plans on ending the exile as well - by taking on and defeating Satan himself. Jesus is tempted to fight Satan on his own terms, but overcomes this during the temptation in the desert. Later, the Satan has even infiltrated his disciples - Peter himself tempts Jesus to take up arms and fight. It is clear that Jesus must go it alone. Jesus does overcome these trials however, and defeats Satan not on Satan's terms (as perhaps some of his contemporaries were trying to do) but on YHWH's terms.
This defeat of Satan was accomplished through his final journey to Jerusalem, his trial, and his inglorious death on the cross. Jesus knew that this was coming. His death was not an unforeseen tragedy, but the expected culmination of his life's work. This is the end of sins. This is the return from exile. This is the Victory of God.
September 2, 2019
This book is awesome. While I learned a lot from the previous book in this series (The New Testament and the People of God), it was largely concerned with introduction and background. This book digs into the specifics of who Jesus was, what his ministry was about, and the reasons for his death.
To try to sum up N.T. Wright's picture of Jesus: Jesus was a Jewish prophet who preached a Jewish eschatological message about the imminent approach of the kingdom of God; at the same time, he subverted the expectations of his day by redefining how YHWH was going to save his people, and who would be saved. So against scholars who believe that Jesus was just a (possibly Cynic) teacher of wisdom, or that his eschatological message meant that he expected the end of the space-time continuum, Wright argues that these pictures do not fit with how the people of Judea would have understood their religion or read their scriptures. And against a modern western orthodox/protestant view of Jesus as the teacher of an abstract salvation and forgiveness of sins, he argues that these too would not have made sense to his hearers, who were living in a time of political tension and religious revolution.
I got the most out of this book when I had my bible open at the same time, re-reading passages that Wright mentions. Wright proceeds somewhat chronologically through Jesus' ministry, categorizing Jesus' different sayings and explaining what he thinks they would have meant in the first century. As someone who grew up listening to these parables and stories taught in Sunday School, needless to say I often found Wright's interpretations to be novel. But at the same time, they often exposed how the interpretations I previously had really wouldn't have made sense in the context Jesus was in. Now when I read the New Testament, I don't just ask myself if my reading "makes sense to me" or "fits in my experience"- of huge importance is whether it would have made sense to the original hearers.
As an example, after many bible studies on the parables of the talents, or the wise and foolish virgins, etc., I took the meaning of those parables to be simply, "be wise with what resources you have been given, and be faithful to God." But Wright explains that these parables were not just meant to teach timeless truths. In a time period when the people of Israel were anticipating that YHWH would vindicate them soon and rescue them from the pagan Roman armies, these parables with an element of "the master returning" have a specific effect. That is, "yes, YHWH is returning soon; but are you sure that you are one of those who will be considered faithful?". Jesus then redefines faithfulness as allegiance, not just to the Torah or to the Temple ritual, but to following Jesus himself.
The chapters on Jesus' trip to Jerusalem were especially compelling. N.T. Wright draws out the dramatic prophetic actions performed by Jesus in Jerusalem, which eventually led to his death. These included his action in the temple and his speech afterward, in which he condemned the temple and predicted its destruction (and said that its destruction would be Jesus' own vindication). Jesus didn't just die accidentally or just because of petty jealousy; his message was deeply subversive to the powerful Jewish leaders at the time, and specifically condemned the nation's actions and symbols as having been corrupted from YHWH's command.
Like I wrote in my previous review, I don't have the background to evaluate the strength of the historical arguments. I'm learning that in contrast to the more deductive methods of philosophy, historical argument proceeds often by asserting "what would have made sense" in a less rigorous way that I'm used to- perhaps because that's the best we can do given the data. So I will need to keep reading.
But after reading this book, I definitely won't read my bible or see Jesus the same way that I did before. To be honest, the "Jesus of timeless truths" that I understood before did not seem to have a distinct personality that I could understand. Or perhaps he always had some sort of mystical ethereal quality towards him, since I was always thinking that he was speaking to me directly through the pages of the bible, with a message that just happened to be infinitely transferrable across time and culture. He was infinitely relatable, because I was always immediately interpreting his actions and words to be directed towards myself and my situation. But the Jesus presented in this book, who addressed the people of his time, and spoke regarding the problems of his time with authority and boldness- that Jesus, though less relatable to me due to the time and culture difference, seems to be more real. That is the Jesus I want to know.
To try to sum up N.T. Wright's picture of Jesus: Jesus was a Jewish prophet who preached a Jewish eschatological message about the imminent approach of the kingdom of God; at the same time, he subverted the expectations of his day by redefining how YHWH was going to save his people, and who would be saved. So against scholars who believe that Jesus was just a (possibly Cynic) teacher of wisdom, or that his eschatological message meant that he expected the end of the space-time continuum, Wright argues that these pictures do not fit with how the people of Judea would have understood their religion or read their scriptures. And against a modern western orthodox/protestant view of Jesus as the teacher of an abstract salvation and forgiveness of sins, he argues that these too would not have made sense to his hearers, who were living in a time of political tension and religious revolution.
I got the most out of this book when I had my bible open at the same time, re-reading passages that Wright mentions. Wright proceeds somewhat chronologically through Jesus' ministry, categorizing Jesus' different sayings and explaining what he thinks they would have meant in the first century. As someone who grew up listening to these parables and stories taught in Sunday School, needless to say I often found Wright's interpretations to be novel. But at the same time, they often exposed how the interpretations I previously had really wouldn't have made sense in the context Jesus was in. Now when I read the New Testament, I don't just ask myself if my reading "makes sense to me" or "fits in my experience"- of huge importance is whether it would have made sense to the original hearers.
As an example, after many bible studies on the parables of the talents, or the wise and foolish virgins, etc., I took the meaning of those parables to be simply, "be wise with what resources you have been given, and be faithful to God." But Wright explains that these parables were not just meant to teach timeless truths. In a time period when the people of Israel were anticipating that YHWH would vindicate them soon and rescue them from the pagan Roman armies, these parables with an element of "the master returning" have a specific effect. That is, "yes, YHWH is returning soon; but are you sure that you are one of those who will be considered faithful?". Jesus then redefines faithfulness as allegiance, not just to the Torah or to the Temple ritual, but to following Jesus himself.
The chapters on Jesus' trip to Jerusalem were especially compelling. N.T. Wright draws out the dramatic prophetic actions performed by Jesus in Jerusalem, which eventually led to his death. These included his action in the temple and his speech afterward, in which he condemned the temple and predicted its destruction (and said that its destruction would be Jesus' own vindication). Jesus didn't just die accidentally or just because of petty jealousy; his message was deeply subversive to the powerful Jewish leaders at the time, and specifically condemned the nation's actions and symbols as having been corrupted from YHWH's command.
Like I wrote in my previous review, I don't have the background to evaluate the strength of the historical arguments. I'm learning that in contrast to the more deductive methods of philosophy, historical argument proceeds often by asserting "what would have made sense" in a less rigorous way that I'm used to- perhaps because that's the best we can do given the data. So I will need to keep reading.
But after reading this book, I definitely won't read my bible or see Jesus the same way that I did before. To be honest, the "Jesus of timeless truths" that I understood before did not seem to have a distinct personality that I could understand. Or perhaps he always had some sort of mystical ethereal quality towards him, since I was always thinking that he was speaking to me directly through the pages of the bible, with a message that just happened to be infinitely transferrable across time and culture. He was infinitely relatable, because I was always immediately interpreting his actions and words to be directed towards myself and my situation. But the Jesus presented in this book, who addressed the people of his time, and spoke regarding the problems of his time with authority and boldness- that Jesus, though less relatable to me due to the time and culture difference, seems to be more real. That is the Jesus I want to know.
July 19, 2011
I'm not sure how much of Wright's rereading of the gospels I buy into, but it is nonetheless an interesting read. This is much better and more important than the highly acclaimed RSG. There is great dialogue with Wright at the 2010 Wheaton Theology Conference. Hays offers a valid critique that Wright conflates the 3 unique voices of the Synoptics into one, and I would add that this voice tends to look more like Luke than the other two. Walsh and Keesmat offer an excellent addition to his work in demanding the cry for economic injustice also be heard. It is a must listen after you have finished JVG. I appreciate that his reading seeks to understand Jesus in his political/religious world instead of Western Evangelicalism that individualizes Jesus stories to make easy applications to their lives. Wright's approach offers more satisfactory approach to 'application' as well as answering the Quests for Jesus.
September 26, 2013
From my blog (http://disciplernetwork.blogspot.com/...)
Once again in Volume 2 of the Series “Christian Origins and the Question of God”, British theologian N.T. Wright has given scholars, historians, pastors and lay people a lot to chew on. He has provided a solid historical evaluation of the prophetic ministry of Jesus along with his aims and beliefs.
One thing that must constantly be kept in mind in this work is that it is historical in nature more so than theological. That is not to say that it is not theological; it is that. But Wright’s passion is for the historical perspective. He does try to weave together the theological and the historical in this volume, as he did in Volume 1. I think overall he does pretty well.
Where I gained insight was in the eschatological nature of the gospels. Wright makes the case that Jesus ministry was intentionally eschatological (primarily symbolic). For that reason, western theologians have read the gospels anachronistically for the most part. We read the gospels like they are the letters of Paul. If we are students of the Bible, we need to keep in mind the genre of the particular book we are studying. Wright says that the gospels are often treated solely theologically while ignoring the historical context.
One of the points that Wright repeats (almost ad nauseum) is that when Jesus spoke of his coming in judgment that he was not speaking of some future parousia, but of his current presence among them and his forthcoming death and resurrection. What this means is that Jesus was pronouncing judgment on the Jews for their rejection of Jesus. He points out as evidence the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 by the Romans. The Jews of Jesus’ day had their focus on their deliverance from Roman oppression. Therefore, they missed their true Messiah (Jesus). Because of this rejection, Jesus pronounces and acts out judgment. In this respect he is like the prophet Ezekiel who lay on both his sides (See Ezekiel Chapter 4) to symbolize the siege against Jerusalem.
Jesus parables and his ministry were primarily directed at the Jews. While he did have a world focus (the Great Commission for example), his main goal was to defeat the real enemy (the Satan, as Wright puts it) and to provide a redefinition of Israel. Jesus was inaugurating the kingdom in his ministry, death and resurrection. By a redefinition Wright means that Jesus provided a new way of understanding the law (Torah), he took upon himself the function of the temple (by his sacrificial death), and demonstrated meekness instead of resisting enemies (Rome).
In Part II of the book (The Profile of a Prophet), Wright’s focus is on the prophetic ministry of Jesus. Wright makes the case that Jesus should be seen as a prophet whose main focus was on the eschatological (again symbolic). To make his point, Jesus told many stories. Many of his stories revolved around the “Kingdom of God”. The point Jesus conveyed in these stories is apparent: The coming of the Kingdom (in Jesus), and the redefinition of Israel, meant that the end was at hand for Israel as a political entity. The new Israel was to be centered in the Person of Jesus. Those who embraced Jesus would be saved.
Within a generation the Romans would attack them, destroy the Temple and scatter the Jews to the four winds. Those who did believe in Jesus and embraced the new paradigm would escape. Those who insisted on rebellion and revolution against Rome would be swept away in judgment. Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel. Everything that God had intended for Israel was being fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the Prophet spoken of in (Deuteronomy 18:18). The tragedy is that by and large, the Jews did not believe the word of the Prophet and because of this unbelief, they would be judged.
In Part III (The Aims and Beliefs of Jesus) we encounter a discussion about how Jesus saw himself. What was the goal of Jesus? What was the purpose of his miracles and his parables/teachings? Jesus understood his mission. He knew that he was the Messiah. He knew that he was the Prophet. He resisted the temptation by the Satan to use power to gain followers. Jesus lived out humility and meekness. He understood more than anyone else that the demand for a political King. He resisted that way. The Messiah would defeat Israel’s true enemy: not Rome, but the Satan. That defeat meant that Jesus would have to endure the cross. He would die for the expiation of sin (removal of guilt), the atonement for sin (payment for sin) and the propitiation of sin (assuagement of wrath). He knew that the temple sacrifices were at an end. He would make the one final sacrifice for sin by his death. If Israel would truly come back from exile, then they would have to leave behind all they knew and embrace Jesus.
Since the Babylonian exile, the LORD had not really manifested his presence among his people as in the days of Moses (the cloud of glory by day and night). The second temple was not really the final answer. They were still “in exile”. The coming of the kingdom, as Jesus taught it, was that he presented himself as the one who was inaugurating the kingdom. Only those who had ears to hear would come to Jesus to be saved.
Overall, I really learned a lot from this work. I gained a healthy appreciation for the historical aspect of the gospels. That Jesus ministry was mainly focused on the Jews and his offer of a new paradigm for Israel. He inaugurated the kingdom of God in his ministry, death and resurrection. I would differ with Wright in that I do believe that Jesus spoke about a literal Parousia. I believe he had a double meaning. As with the Old Testament prophets, Jesus pronouncements had an immediate contextual interpretation (as Wright correctly asserts) but he also had (I believe) something to say to the future church who would be reading his words in the gospels. Jesus would one day come back on a literal cloud (Acts 1:11).
Now at the end of this volume, the reader is prepared for Volume III. In it, Wright tackles the huge topic of the Resurrection of the Son of God. The quality of the scholarship and the depth of writing certainly affirm the popularity of Wright. While I did not agree with all of Wright’s assertions, I have certainly grown in my appreciation of the gospels and especially the historical aspects of the New Testament. I would certainly recommend this book.
Once again in Volume 2 of the Series “Christian Origins and the Question of God”, British theologian N.T. Wright has given scholars, historians, pastors and lay people a lot to chew on. He has provided a solid historical evaluation of the prophetic ministry of Jesus along with his aims and beliefs.
One thing that must constantly be kept in mind in this work is that it is historical in nature more so than theological. That is not to say that it is not theological; it is that. But Wright’s passion is for the historical perspective. He does try to weave together the theological and the historical in this volume, as he did in Volume 1. I think overall he does pretty well.
Where I gained insight was in the eschatological nature of the gospels. Wright makes the case that Jesus ministry was intentionally eschatological (primarily symbolic). For that reason, western theologians have read the gospels anachronistically for the most part. We read the gospels like they are the letters of Paul. If we are students of the Bible, we need to keep in mind the genre of the particular book we are studying. Wright says that the gospels are often treated solely theologically while ignoring the historical context.
One of the points that Wright repeats (almost ad nauseum) is that when Jesus spoke of his coming in judgment that he was not speaking of some future parousia, but of his current presence among them and his forthcoming death and resurrection. What this means is that Jesus was pronouncing judgment on the Jews for their rejection of Jesus. He points out as evidence the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 by the Romans. The Jews of Jesus’ day had their focus on their deliverance from Roman oppression. Therefore, they missed their true Messiah (Jesus). Because of this rejection, Jesus pronounces and acts out judgment. In this respect he is like the prophet Ezekiel who lay on both his sides (See Ezekiel Chapter 4) to symbolize the siege against Jerusalem.
Jesus parables and his ministry were primarily directed at the Jews. While he did have a world focus (the Great Commission for example), his main goal was to defeat the real enemy (the Satan, as Wright puts it) and to provide a redefinition of Israel. Jesus was inaugurating the kingdom in his ministry, death and resurrection. By a redefinition Wright means that Jesus provided a new way of understanding the law (Torah), he took upon himself the function of the temple (by his sacrificial death), and demonstrated meekness instead of resisting enemies (Rome).
In Part II of the book (The Profile of a Prophet), Wright’s focus is on the prophetic ministry of Jesus. Wright makes the case that Jesus should be seen as a prophet whose main focus was on the eschatological (again symbolic). To make his point, Jesus told many stories. Many of his stories revolved around the “Kingdom of God”. The point Jesus conveyed in these stories is apparent: The coming of the Kingdom (in Jesus), and the redefinition of Israel, meant that the end was at hand for Israel as a political entity. The new Israel was to be centered in the Person of Jesus. Those who embraced Jesus would be saved.
Within a generation the Romans would attack them, destroy the Temple and scatter the Jews to the four winds. Those who did believe in Jesus and embraced the new paradigm would escape. Those who insisted on rebellion and revolution against Rome would be swept away in judgment. Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel. Everything that God had intended for Israel was being fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the Prophet spoken of in (Deuteronomy 18:18). The tragedy is that by and large, the Jews did not believe the word of the Prophet and because of this unbelief, they would be judged.
In Part III (The Aims and Beliefs of Jesus) we encounter a discussion about how Jesus saw himself. What was the goal of Jesus? What was the purpose of his miracles and his parables/teachings? Jesus understood his mission. He knew that he was the Messiah. He knew that he was the Prophet. He resisted the temptation by the Satan to use power to gain followers. Jesus lived out humility and meekness. He understood more than anyone else that the demand for a political King. He resisted that way. The Messiah would defeat Israel’s true enemy: not Rome, but the Satan. That defeat meant that Jesus would have to endure the cross. He would die for the expiation of sin (removal of guilt), the atonement for sin (payment for sin) and the propitiation of sin (assuagement of wrath). He knew that the temple sacrifices were at an end. He would make the one final sacrifice for sin by his death. If Israel would truly come back from exile, then they would have to leave behind all they knew and embrace Jesus.
Since the Babylonian exile, the LORD had not really manifested his presence among his people as in the days of Moses (the cloud of glory by day and night). The second temple was not really the final answer. They were still “in exile”. The coming of the kingdom, as Jesus taught it, was that he presented himself as the one who was inaugurating the kingdom. Only those who had ears to hear would come to Jesus to be saved.
Overall, I really learned a lot from this work. I gained a healthy appreciation for the historical aspect of the gospels. That Jesus ministry was mainly focused on the Jews and his offer of a new paradigm for Israel. He inaugurated the kingdom of God in his ministry, death and resurrection. I would differ with Wright in that I do believe that Jesus spoke about a literal Parousia. I believe he had a double meaning. As with the Old Testament prophets, Jesus pronouncements had an immediate contextual interpretation (as Wright correctly asserts) but he also had (I believe) something to say to the future church who would be reading his words in the gospels. Jesus would one day come back on a literal cloud (Acts 1:11).
Now at the end of this volume, the reader is prepared for Volume III. In it, Wright tackles the huge topic of the Resurrection of the Son of God. The quality of the scholarship and the depth of writing certainly affirm the popularity of Wright. While I did not agree with all of Wright’s assertions, I have certainly grown in my appreciation of the gospels and especially the historical aspects of the New Testament. I would certainly recommend this book.
March 12, 2024
Wow.
This book was the cat’s meow.
But really, will change the way I think permanently about Jesus and the world he lived in.
This book was the cat’s meow.
But really, will change the way I think permanently about Jesus and the world he lived in.
April 11, 2020
Probably my favourite book by N. T. Wright so far! Powerful and careful, this work deals with the possibility of retrieving a historical Jesus within his Second Temple Jewish context.
The basic argument of the book develops from a review of the last three hundred years of Jesus' Research, framed in the 'Three Quests' for the Historical Jesus. Following and developing the paradigm of the Third Quest, Wright develops the public figure of Jesus as an eschatological prophet, reshaping the Jewish story, symbols, praxis and worldview altogether, relativizing all of them around his own persona. Wright here emphasizes that Jesus was bringing the good news that Isreal's exile was over, and Jesus was indicating the results of this climax of Israel's story. But through his announcement of judgment over unfaithful parts of Israel, particularly in his Temple-Action, Jesus is handed over by Jewish authorities to die under Poncius Pilate.
Following from this 'worldview' analysis, Wright comes closer to a personal 'mindset' of Jesus (his aims and beliefs). The basic points here, in parallel with the previous part, is that Jesus saw himself and announced the return from exile, the defeat of evil through a strange kind of defeat by himself as the Messiah, and finally the return of YHWH to Zion emobied in Jesus himself. One of the most beautiful and impacting parts of the book is chapter 12, when Wright deals with Jesus' crucifixion, its reasons and Jesus' perception of the event through his actions (especially in the Last Supper).
The only critique: it is, at times, quite repetitive and wordy, and I feel it could have been 200 pages shorter. One example among many others: pp. 383-384 and 378-9 have pretty much the same argument and footnotes concerning the role of purity for 1st century Pharisees. Still, this book is a must-read for Biblical studies, particularly for those interested in the Historical Jesus.
The basic argument of the book develops from a review of the last three hundred years of Jesus' Research, framed in the 'Three Quests' for the Historical Jesus. Following and developing the paradigm of the Third Quest, Wright develops the public figure of Jesus as an eschatological prophet, reshaping the Jewish story, symbols, praxis and worldview altogether, relativizing all of them around his own persona. Wright here emphasizes that Jesus was bringing the good news that Isreal's exile was over, and Jesus was indicating the results of this climax of Israel's story. But through his announcement of judgment over unfaithful parts of Israel, particularly in his Temple-Action, Jesus is handed over by Jewish authorities to die under Poncius Pilate.
Following from this 'worldview' analysis, Wright comes closer to a personal 'mindset' of Jesus (his aims and beliefs). The basic points here, in parallel with the previous part, is that Jesus saw himself and announced the return from exile, the defeat of evil through a strange kind of defeat by himself as the Messiah, and finally the return of YHWH to Zion emobied in Jesus himself. One of the most beautiful and impacting parts of the book is chapter 12, when Wright deals with Jesus' crucifixion, its reasons and Jesus' perception of the event through his actions (especially in the Last Supper).
The only critique: it is, at times, quite repetitive and wordy, and I feel it could have been 200 pages shorter. One example among many others: pp. 383-384 and 378-9 have pretty much the same argument and footnotes concerning the role of purity for 1st century Pharisees. Still, this book is a must-read for Biblical studies, particularly for those interested in the Historical Jesus.
Read
August 9, 2011When I finished reading Vol. 1 of this series, The New Testament and the People of God, I realized right away that there would be two more books on the agenda. This book was even better than the first. Often I thought how valuable this book would have been during my bible college and seminary days, only to remind myself that it was not in print and wouldn't be for two more decades. Not once during the study of both Greek and Hebrew did I believe that I was receiving the tools necessary to really understand the stories I was reading. The works that I came across during those days that dealt with biblical bacgrounds usually focused on traditions and customs. This book has helped me more that words can express to understand the aims/intentions/beliefs of Jesus in terms of his stories, symbols, and praxis. My word for Vol. 1 of the series (NTPG) was "wow." My word for this book, Vol. 2 of the series, is "Thanks!" Now off to #3 - The Resurrection of the Son of God.
July 22, 2012
I remember reading this book the first time (yes, I have read it more than once) over the summer while visiting my in-laws. I found out later they couldn't understand why I was so engrossed in reading, as if I had checked myself out of the family! But I had simply never encountered a more impressive work on the humanity of Jesus than I encountered here. While one may not agree with all he writes (who ever agrees with everything someone writes?), one cannot deny the value of the work and the reflection it has spurred across Christian traditions. We owe a huge debt of gratitude for Wright taking on the historical Jesus tradition and bringing it into the 21st Century. I use the book regularly as a reference when working from the synoptic gospels. But be warned: it is truly an academic work.
October 25, 2018
Wright's second volume of his Christian Origins series is much like the first, in that he's interacting primarily with liberal and even apostate theologians. The work reads more like history and apologetic, more than it does theology. There is much good in it, however, especially once you get past the first quarter of the book.
Wright understands, as few others do, the context in which Jesus lived and died. He understands the Jewishness of the New Testament and especially Jesus's polemic against unbelieving Israel. This leads to many important conclusions that the church needs to understand--namely that Jesus was not predicting the end of the world, but the end of the Old Covenant world.
I cannot recommend the book, though, as it is much too long and interacts with unbelieving theologians in ways that don't really answer most of the interesting questions that the texts pose.
Wright understands, as few others do, the context in which Jesus lived and died. He understands the Jewishness of the New Testament and especially Jesus's polemic against unbelieving Israel. This leads to many important conclusions that the church needs to understand--namely that Jesus was not predicting the end of the world, but the end of the Old Covenant world.
I cannot recommend the book, though, as it is much too long and interacts with unbelieving theologians in ways that don't really answer most of the interesting questions that the texts pose.
April 12, 2017
Though it arranges its subject matter thematically, rather than as a commentary as such, there is scarcely a verse of the synoptic gospels that does not go unexamined in this stunning tour-de-force, touching on pretty much every notable Jesus-scholar of the last two centuries.
March 3, 2019
After reading NTPG I knew that I was getting into a good series, but after reading JVG I think this is probably the best series on biblical studies that I have ever read; in many ways it is unique.
November 13, 2024
An incredibly thorough survey of the Jesus' life through many lenses, overlaid with deep historical context about Israel in the first century. Jesus and the Victory of God continues from the extensive ground-laying done in the first book in the series: The New Testament and the People of God. As with that book, JVG is, unfortunately, significantly longer than it needed to be (it took me a year to chew through it!), quite repetitive at times, and engages a lot with a wide range of scholars that I, as a lay reader, will probably never hear from again.
That said, this was well worth reading. I had some real "aha" moments where I got a clearer picture of how the synoptic Gospel accounts bridge to the seeming theological leaps that marked off the Way from the rest of Judaism. At other times, the dazzling radiance of Jesus simply jumped off the page. The best compliment I can think of is that after 800+ pages of scholarly synthesis of the life of Jesus in its full historical context, the picture that emerges from this book is clear and lucid, even to the point of seeming obvious in retrospect. Jesus took the rich tapestry of ideas, symbols, and promises of first-century Judaism and wrapped them entirely around himself in a way that was both cryptic and obvious: whoever this is, he is no mere teacher.
What, in the end, made Jesus operate in this way, what energized his incorporating death into his mission, his facing it and going to meet it? The range of abstractly possible answers is enormous. But it is above all in the tradition generated by Jesus that we discover what made him operate in the way he did, what made him epitomize his life in the single act of going to his death: He ‘loved me and handed himself over for me’; ‘having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end’...If authenticity lies in the coherence between word and deed, our question has found an answer.
That said, this was well worth reading. I had some real "aha" moments where I got a clearer picture of how the synoptic Gospel accounts bridge to the seeming theological leaps that marked off the Way from the rest of Judaism. At other times, the dazzling radiance of Jesus simply jumped off the page. The best compliment I can think of is that after 800+ pages of scholarly synthesis of the life of Jesus in its full historical context, the picture that emerges from this book is clear and lucid, even to the point of seeming obvious in retrospect. Jesus took the rich tapestry of ideas, symbols, and promises of first-century Judaism and wrapped them entirely around himself in a way that was both cryptic and obvious: whoever this is, he is no mere teacher.
What, in the end, made Jesus operate in this way, what energized his incorporating death into his mission, his facing it and going to meet it? The range of abstractly possible answers is enormous. But it is above all in the tradition generated by Jesus that we discover what made him operate in the way he did, what made him epitomize his life in the single act of going to his death: He ‘loved me and handed himself over for me’; ‘having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end’...If authenticity lies in the coherence between word and deed, our question has found an answer.
August 18, 2020
Right before the famous poem in Isaiah of the Suffering Servant, there’s this poem that reads,
“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” The voice of your watchmen—they lift up their voice; together they sing for joy; for eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion. Break forth together into singing, you waste places of Jerusalem, for the Lord has comforted his people; he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.”
Isaiah 52:7-10 ESV
This is just one passage of the many that speak to the hope of Israel that God would return to his temple and rescue them from foreign oppressors. God would “[bar] his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations” and restore his people. Israel would return from exile and be Gods kingdom of priests that they were always supposed to be for the rest of the nations.
This book has been on my shelf for probably two years. For some reason it was incredibly hard to pick up and start but now having finished reading it I can understand why it is considered a staple of Wright’s work. Wright shows with breathtaking clarity and comprehensive scope that Jesus was a prophet who believed himself to be the Messiah that would not only announce but also embody the return of YHWH to Zion and establish His kingdom. Israel had went into exile because of idolatry and God would bring them out of it, announcing the forgiveness of sins to not only them but to the rest of the nations.
This book didn’t just clarify things for me to put into more categories that I already had about Jesus. It opened up a whole world of Scripture and second temple literature that made the story of Jesus profoundly more rich and vibrant than I had ever thought it was.
“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” The voice of your watchmen—they lift up their voice; together they sing for joy; for eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion. Break forth together into singing, you waste places of Jerusalem, for the Lord has comforted his people; he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.”
Isaiah 52:7-10 ESV
This is just one passage of the many that speak to the hope of Israel that God would return to his temple and rescue them from foreign oppressors. God would “[bar] his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations” and restore his people. Israel would return from exile and be Gods kingdom of priests that they were always supposed to be for the rest of the nations.
This book has been on my shelf for probably two years. For some reason it was incredibly hard to pick up and start but now having finished reading it I can understand why it is considered a staple of Wright’s work. Wright shows with breathtaking clarity and comprehensive scope that Jesus was a prophet who believed himself to be the Messiah that would not only announce but also embody the return of YHWH to Zion and establish His kingdom. Israel had went into exile because of idolatry and God would bring them out of it, announcing the forgiveness of sins to not only them but to the rest of the nations.
This book didn’t just clarify things for me to put into more categories that I already had about Jesus. It opened up a whole world of Scripture and second temple literature that made the story of Jesus profoundly more rich and vibrant than I had ever thought it was.
May 29, 2021
Unbelievably dense and fascinating. It’s hard to believe that I didn’t read these books by NT Wright until now. On the other hand, perhaps I wasn’t quite ready yet. Like the previous volume, this one will have a profound effect on my view of Jesus, God and the Bible. While Wright’s use of the English language is both inspired and delightful, he says so much in such a short space, I found myself re-reading certain passages just to understand fully what was being said. It took a long time to read, but it was well worth the effort. I may wait a bit before tackling the next volume, but very much look forward to the challenge!
January 20, 2022
Mostly excellent. Brought the synoptics to life for me, not just as preludes to Paul's epistles but as the story of the OT fulfilled. Plus, partial-preterists of the world will rejoice with some excellent exegesis of many synoptic passages, not least the Olivet Discourse.
A few niggles which were less enjoyable to my Reformed sensibilities along the way; the constant qualification that the following passage is 'likely' historically accurate, for instance.
A few niggles which were less enjoyable to my Reformed sensibilities along the way; the constant qualification that the following passage is 'likely' historically accurate, for instance.
September 16, 2025
N. T. Wright’s longer works can be long and discursive, leaving the reader wondering if he could make the same points in half the space. But he’s a delightful writer and I thoroughly enjoyed this work. For anyone not familiar with Wright, he defends the faith in a very roundabout way, effectively sympathizing with skeptics the whole way through, wanting to leave no stone unturned before finally reaching his conclusions.
February 14, 2022
Building on the background in The New Testament and the People of God, Wright argues that Jesus' aims were eschatological and primarily focused on bringing the Kingdom of God into his "now". Through his prophetic warnings, teaching, and symbolic acts, Jesus showed how God was bringing the long anticipated, true return from exile, the new exodus, the return of YHWH to his people.
Though some of the details weren't initially convincing for me, the weight of his argument as a whole was immensely powerful and has shifted how I read the Gospels in a very helpful way. After seeing how everything fits together, it has given me a new excitement to read through the Gospels with a new lens.
Though some of the details weren't initially convincing for me, the weight of his argument as a whole was immensely powerful and has shifted how I read the Gospels in a very helpful way. After seeing how everything fits together, it has given me a new excitement to read through the Gospels with a new lens.
June 24, 2025
history and eschatology are central to understanding the Biblical narrative in a way that is not stumbling over itself in contradiction.
May 25, 2012
I have a lot that I could say on this book, but I will limit that to a minimum. This is a impressive volume that has contributed to our understanding of Jesus, and shows how well learned Wright is and gives him the rightful place as one of the world's best experts in this area. I appreciated all of the interaction early on with Jesus scholarship and the debates that have been running for the past couple centuries and the different contributions; it really put the book in context and gives it significance. Further, the interaction with OT and 2nd Temple literature was wide. Wright is really convincing showing how Jews, well many of them, thought of themselves in exile and how they are to ushered back by the Messiah and YHWH will return to Zion, and things will be put back to right, again. By revealing this nationalistic hope popular in Jewish ideology, he shows how Jesus was a Jew with a similar (Jewish) framework, but completely subverts them. Reconstructing this early 1st world allows us to understand Jesus as prophet, messiah, and why he died. Wright also does a good job critiquing the popular misunderstanding of Jewish apocalyptic; it is not the end of the space-time universe. I am not necessarily convinced with Wright's conclusion of what Jewish apocalyptic is, there seems to be a lot of other views on this and I haven't yet been able to consort those sources; I am especially interested in J. Louis Martyn's reading of apocalyptic. Also, Wright doesn't give voice to each evangelist on its own term; Matthew, Mark and Luke are all blended without giving them their own voice. My main critique of Wright is his reading of parables. He brings in good cultural background information from Kenneth Bailey, but he then goes into how Jesus' parables are telling stories about Israel in exile. For example, the prodigal son parable is Israel in exile being called back into relationship with God, while the elder brother is the Jews? (How can the father say, "You we always with me?") I was following him really well and was fascinated, until he got to his reading of the elder brother. Wright is trying to fit his understanding of parables - telling Israel's story - and forcing that mold on the parable. I would like to see a more convincing explanation of this reading. Other parables give to telling Israel's story more than others, but not the prodigal son. All in all, Wright's book is quite amazing, just not sure how many sermons I can listen to on the gospels today, because it is void of history and about timeless truths (Bultmann and Schleiermacher), as Wright strongly disagrees with. I recommend this to any student of the gospels and Jesus.
October 29, 2013
It's taken me a good 9-10 months of reading this book off and on to get through the whole thing. The depth and amount of information in this, as well as the other volumes in the series (at least the first one, I'm working my way through so I haven't read the next two yet but I'm assuming they hold up to what he's done so far) is pretty amazing. This particular volume is pretty much a look into the life and ministry of Jesus and Wright's case for why the context of the Kingdom is so crucial to a good understanding of what Jesus, and hence Christianity, was and is all about and then exploring what exactly that theme of the Kingdom entails. There are some points where it can seem like he's saying some of the same stuff over and over, since he is essentially arguing the point of the importance of the Kingdom of God on all fronts, but even during these repetitive parts there is immense value because he just goes through the gospel accounts bringing up well known and some often frustratingly confusing stories, parables, actions, etc. and explains them through that lens of the Kingdom. There were numerous points in the book that triggered "aha" moments, when something that I hadn't thought of before clicked into place, as well as points that challenged me and are continuing to challenge me in my thinking and understanding of Jesus and what it means to follow him. Since it is such an in depth book and one of his more scholarly works, it may not be for everyone, but he's easily my favorite author on Christianity and I would recommend him to anyone looking to dig a little more and challenge some of the things they may have taken for granted over the years about the faith.
October 24, 2015
In the end though, this is a great book for anyone serious about New Testament studies to wrestle through. I never got around to it in seminary, but I’m glad I took the time now. Stylistically, it is a fairly easy read. But, content-wise, there is much to process and digest, so getting through it is no easy task. It’s not for the faint of heart and those who are interested but maybe more time bound in their reading than I am may want to check out Simply Jesus or How God Became King. Both of these take the general ideas and themes from this book and make them more reader friendly.
The price that comes with it though is more practical (and in many cases political) insights than what this book offers. Jesus and The Victory of God has no real priestly overtones or practical applications in it. It’s a straight historical investigation with some theological flavoring. With Wright’s popular books, he is just as compelling of a writer if not more so, but he also has ideas about how to apply his ideas that not everyone will agree with.
But then again, not every agrees about anything, so there’s always going to be a critic isn’t there? I prefer Wright’s academic writings, but I’ve benefited from his popular treatments as well. He’s a gifted writer and a gifted scholar serving the church. I think because of that, whether you ultimately agree with him or not, you can’t really dismiss him and ought to wrestle with his thoughts and ideas.
Read a more extensive review on my blog
The price that comes with it though is more practical (and in many cases political) insights than what this book offers. Jesus and The Victory of God has no real priestly overtones or practical applications in it. It’s a straight historical investigation with some theological flavoring. With Wright’s popular books, he is just as compelling of a writer if not more so, but he also has ideas about how to apply his ideas that not everyone will agree with.
But then again, not every agrees about anything, so there’s always going to be a critic isn’t there? I prefer Wright’s academic writings, but I’ve benefited from his popular treatments as well. He’s a gifted writer and a gifted scholar serving the church. I think because of that, whether you ultimately agree with him or not, you can’t really dismiss him and ought to wrestle with his thoughts and ideas.
Read a more extensive review on my blog
July 24, 2014
This was a thoroughly enjoyable read - and I did embark on it having first finished the first Volume, "The New Testament of the People of God". And I do highly recommend reading that first Volume as the arguments and methodologies used in this book are heavily based on what has gone before.
Now this is quite a large book as it does a thorough examination of Jesus via a scholarly approach to the Synoptic Gospels as well as other early sources, whilst grounding everything in the First Century Judaism established in the first Volume. I have often argued that the contents of the Sermon on the Mount / Plain, the Parables, etc were not once off but repeated - as I do whether as a Pastor or as a Teacher - and Jesus was far better at both. It was good to see Wright articulate this argument far better than I ever have. So often it is not just the Scholastic World but also the Orthodox / Evangelical World that is underestimating Jesus. Whilst our Faith is a historical one, we are scared of what history will show us - I believe Wright addresses this well!
My understanding of Jesus' Kingdom speeches and parables is far better due to this book.
Not saying that I agree with all the Author has to say, but he has given me much to think about - and I believe better ways to understand the First Century Middle Eastern world.
I would've enjoyed having a more in depth coverage of the Gospel of John. Though of course that would've added a couple of hundred more pages ;-)
Now this is quite a large book as it does a thorough examination of Jesus via a scholarly approach to the Synoptic Gospels as well as other early sources, whilst grounding everything in the First Century Judaism established in the first Volume. I have often argued that the contents of the Sermon on the Mount / Plain, the Parables, etc were not once off but repeated - as I do whether as a Pastor or as a Teacher - and Jesus was far better at both. It was good to see Wright articulate this argument far better than I ever have. So often it is not just the Scholastic World but also the Orthodox / Evangelical World that is underestimating Jesus. Whilst our Faith is a historical one, we are scared of what history will show us - I believe Wright addresses this well!
My understanding of Jesus' Kingdom speeches and parables is far better due to this book.
Not saying that I agree with all the Author has to say, but he has given me much to think about - and I believe better ways to understand the First Century Middle Eastern world.
I would've enjoyed having a more in depth coverage of the Gospel of John. Though of course that would've added a couple of hundred more pages ;-)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 151 reviews